There is no federal packaging EPR law, and none of these bills would create one. Two of them would set federal rules for what a package may claim and preempt the states on that question, which is the federal activity that actually reaches a producer. Status, sponsors, and an honest read on how far each has moved.
Free. Updated weekly. No login required.
Facts on this page were last verified against primary sources on July 26, 2026. The EPR Atlas is re-checked weekly; this stamp moves only when a verification pass actually runs, not when the site rebuilds.
There is no federal packaging EPR law and none of the bills below would create one. What two of them would do is set federal rules for what a package may claim, and preempt the states on that question. For a producer, that is the federal activity worth tracking, because a labeling preemption reaches every SKU in every state at once in a way no single state program does.
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Committee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H.R. 6832 PACK Act |
Packaging and Claims Knowledge (PACK) Act of 2025 | Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) | House Energy and Commerce | Referred to committee.verified July 26, 2026 |
| H.R. 7502 RMAA |
Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 | Rep. Nicholas Langworthy (R-NY) | House Energy and Commerce | Referred to committee.verified July 26, 2026 |
| H.R. 4466 CIRCLE Act |
Cultivating Investment in Recycling and Circular Local Economies Act of 2025 | Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-NY) | House Ways and Means | Referred to committee.verified July 26, 2026 |
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade held a legislative hearing on July 22, 2026. It is worth being precise about what this was, because it has been reported as a packaging hearing and it was not: the PACK Act and the RMAA were 2 of 12 bills on a broad consumer protection docket that also covered nitrous oxide safety, app store regulation, ticketing and scam prevention.
John Hewitt of the Consumer Brands Association and the Recycling Leadership Council testified in support of both bills. John Breyault of the National Consumers League opposed both, arguing the PACK Act would preempt state labeling standards without establishing a strong federal baseline, and that the RMAA would legitimize mass balance accounting.
No markup, vote or next step was announced. A legislative hearing is a prerequisite step, not a commitment to move. Both bills remain referred to committee with no action recorded. Treat this as the first committee attention either bill has received, and nothing more than that.
Packaging and Claims Knowledge (PACK) Act of 2025 | Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) | Introduced December 17, 2025 | House Energy and Commerce
What it does: Amends the FTC Act to set federal requirements for recyclable, compostable and reusable claims on consumer product packaging.
Status: Referred to committee. A legislative hearing was held July 22, 2026. No markup, vote or amendment has been scheduled or reported.
Cosponsors: Reported as 17 to 18, including one Democrat (Rep. Adam Gray, D-CA). Sources disagree on whether the sponsor is counted; verify on congress.gov before relying on a figure.
Why it matters: This is the federal bill with the most direct consequence for packaging producers, because of how it preempts. As described by its supporters, states would be barred from adopting or enforcing requirements that differ from the federal framework, not merely requirements that are weaker. That is field preemption rather than a federal floor, and it would displace California SB 343. Note the timing: SB 343 enforcement is itself currently enjoined, which changes what preemption would actually be replacing.
Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 | Rep. Nicholas Langworthy (R-NY) | Introduced February 11, 2026 | House Energy and Commerce
What it does: Prohibits misleading recycled content claims.
Status: Referred to committee. Heard alongside the PACK Act on July 22, 2026. No markup scheduled.
Cosponsors: Reported as 13, bipartisan (roughly 8 Republicans and 5 Democrats).
Why it matters: The fight here is mass balance accounting. The bill explicitly encompasses chemical recycling, and opponents argue it would legitimize recycled content claims that are not tied to physical recycled material in the package. That runs directly into California AB 2253, which moved to Senate Appropriations on July 1, 2026 and would require recycled content claims to reflect actual physical content. If both pass, they conflict.
Cultivating Investment in Recycling and Circular Local Economies Act of 2025 | Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-NY) | Introduced July 16, 2025 | House Ways and Means
What it does: Amends the Internal Revenue Code to create a recycling property investment credit.
Status: Referred to committee. No action and no hearing in more than a year.
Cosponsors: Six, bipartisan.
Why it matters: A tax bill in a different committee, which is why it is not moving with the other two and was not part of the July 22 hearing. It carries no compliance obligation for producers. Track it for the capital-investment signal rather than for anything you would have to do.
Nothing yet, in terms of compliance. No obligation attaches to any of these bills and none has moved past a hearing. The reason to watch is planning: if the PACK Act advances, on-pack recyclability claims become a federal question with a single national standard, and design and artwork decisions made now under state rules would need revisiting. If the RMAA advances alongside California AB 2253, recycled content claims face a federal standard and a state standard pointing in opposite directions on mass balance.
Track the state programs for what you owe today, and this page for what could change the labeling rules underneath them. The state EPR laws page covers the obligations that are actually live.
Every state guide carries the full fee schedule, registration deadlines, program plan status, eco-modulation detail, statute and rule text, and exemptions.